& ITCOu Q* ^5>ti & ¦* -* 8200 >I > O 4? •iJ vs<^& x** -24982 J No. Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: REGINA RESPONDENT AND: WINSTON KAYE BLACKMORE APPLICANT NOTICE OF APPLICATION ON NOTICE TO: Crown Counsel Special Prosecutor Harper Grey LLP Barristers and Solicitors 3200 Vancouver Centre 650 West Georgia Street Vancouver BC V6B 4P7 Attention: Terrence L. Robertson, Q.C TAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by Winston Kaye Blackmore (the "Applicant") to the presiding judge at the courthouse at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia at a date and time to be determined for the following orders: 1. That the prosecution for the charge that Winston Kaye Blackmore, between on or about May 1, 2005 and on or about December 8, 2006, at or near Creston, in the Province of Bitish Columbia, practiced a form of polygamy, or practiced a kind of conjugal union with Christina Maud Blackmore, Mary Anne Blackmore, Marjorie Johnson, Susan Eleene Gallup, Harmony Quinton, Marsha Carol Chatwin, Zelpha Chatwin, Ruth Ann Lane, Diana Lynn Lane, Edith Louise Barlow, Leah Barlow, Marlina Fischer, Janelle Lona Fischer, Jennifer Johnson, Susie Lorraine Johnson, Shalina Ann Palmer, Luella S:\Numbered__Matters\2600-2699\2655 BIackmore\PIeadmgs_SCBC\2009 05 08 Notice ofApplication.doc Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2-2-Elise Barlow, Sharon Johnson and Maie Steed, contrary to s. 293(1 )(a) of the Criminal Code, be stayed. 2. In the alternative, for an order that the prosecution for the charge that Winston Kaye Blackmore between on or about May 1, 2005 and on or about December 8, 2006, at or near Creston, in the Province of British Columbia, practiced a form of polygamy, or practiced a kind of conjugal union with Chistina Maud Blackmore, Mary Anne Blackmore, Marjorie Johnson, Susan Eleene Gallup, Harmony Quinton, Marsha Carol Chatwin, Zelpha Chatwin, Ruth Ann Lane, Diana Lynn Lane, Edith Louise Barlow, Leah Barlow, Marlina Fischer, Janelle Lona Fischer, Jennifer Johnson, Susie Lorraine Johnson, Shalina Ann Palmer, Luella Elise Barlow, Sharon Johnson and Marie Steed, contrary to s. 293(l)(a) of the Criminal Code, be stayed unless: a. the Crown agrees to pay for the legal fees and disbursements reasonably required for the Applicant to retain a legal team of senior and junior counsel of his choice with the necessary expertise and experience to defend himself on this charge; b. such legal fees shall be calculated at the same hourly rates and conditions as apply to the Special Prosecutor and his legal team with comparable experience and expertise; c. the funding of such legal fees and disbursements to be retroactive to the time that the Applicant has retained his present counsel; d. on any other terms and conditions that the Court deems just and appropriate; and e. such other or further order that is just and appropriate in the circumstances including, if necessary, special costs payable in advance and irrespective of the outcome of the prosecution. 3. Full disclosure of all of the communications that relate to the charge approval process leading up to and including the reports of Richard Peck, Q.C., Leonard Doust, Q.C., and Terrence Robertson, Q.C. 4. Costs, including special costs, of this Application. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2-3-The Applicant will seek these orders on the grounds, inter alia, that the prosecution of the Applicant is contrary to the Crown Counsel Act, RSBC 1996, c. 87, or is otherwise an abuse of process, oppressive, manifestly unfair, arbitrary, involves actual, or a perception of, political interference, puts the administration of justice into disrepute and is otherwise contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. The Applicant will rely on sections 7, 11 (b), 11 (c), 11 (d) and 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (the "Charter") the common law, and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and on the Crown Counsel Act, RSBC 1996, c. 87. At the hearing of this Application will be read the affidavit of Sally Yee affirmed May 8, 2009, a copy of which is served herewith. The facts upon which this Application is based are as follows: 1. The Applicant lives in the community of Bountiful a population of about 1,500 people, which is near Creston BC, where he has lived for most of his life. 2. The Crown has charged the Applicant with one count of polygamy, involving 19 women. Count 2 of the Information charges Mr. James Maion Oler with polygamy involving three women. 3. The Crown disclosure to date alleges that approximately 25% of the residents in Bountiful live in a polygamous relationship. 4. Polygamy is allegedly practiced by an indeterminate number of other persons in Canada whether for reasons of religion or otherwise. 5. Allegations that polygamy was being practiced in the Bountiful community came to the attention of the RCMP and the BC Attorney General's office at least as early as 1990. 6. The 1990 allegations were made public and the RCMP in the Creston area conducted an investigation and provided the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General with further information on the situation. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2_4-7. A review of the evidence was conducted by Crown Counsel. In the process of reviewing the charges for approval, Crown Counsel considered both the evidence obtained by the RCMP and the status of the anti-polygamy law in light of the Charter. 8. Crown Counsel sought the opinions of constitutional experts within, as well as outside, the Ministry of the Attorney General. 9. One legal opinion was provided in 1992 by retired BC Appeal Court Judge Richard Anderson. His opinion was that the polygamy law was unconstitutional as an unjustifiable inringement of the guarantee of freedom of religion. 10. Justice Anderson recommended that no prosecution proceed. He instead recommended that the federal government enact new laws that would enhance desirable social objectives without violating the Charter. 11. In Justice Anderson's view, a test case "would require an enormous expenditure of time and money." 12. Justice Anderson concluded his opinion by saying that he was "almost in complete agreement with the internal opinions provided to me." 13. In the early 2000s, the Attorney General again sought legal advice regarding the community at Bountiful, advice that addressed, inter alia, the constitutionality of s. 293 of the Criminal Code. 14. A legal opinion was provided in 2001 by former BC Chief Justice Allan McEachern. He is reported to have concluded that no prosecution should proceed because a religious freedom defence would probably result in s. 293 being struck down as unconstitutional. 15. The Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General is today still of the opinion that s. 293 is unconstitutional. 16. On May 31, 2007, the Attorney General, the Honourable W. Oppal, directed that an experienced criminal lawyer in Bitish Columbia, who was not an employee of the provincial government, be hired to conduct the charge assessment. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2-5-17. Mr. Richard Peck, Q.C. ("Mr. Peck"), a highly respected senior lawyer, was appointed as a Special Prosecutor with the following mandate: a. conducting an independent comprehensive legal analysis of all of the available evidence that has been assembled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as any other information the Criminal Justice Branch had concerning the allegations and was to involve the consideration of any and all potential ciminal or quasi-criminal charges, including but not limited to, polygamy and any offence of a sexual nature; b. offering such legal advice as was necessary to the police in the event that further investigation by them was required; c. providing the Assistant Deputy Attorney General with a witten report setting out his charge assessment review decision; and d. if in his view a charge was warranted, conducting the prosecution and any subsequent appeal. 18. At the request of Mr. Peck, on July 23, 2007, this mandate was expanded to include consideration of a recommendation for a constitutional reference, and cariage of such a reference should one proceed. 19. On August 1, 2007, the Ciminal Justice Branch announced the decision of independent Special Prosecutor Richard Peck, Q.C, reporting that "Mr. Peck has concluded that there should be no ciminal charges laid in connection with the investigation." 20. The Criminal Justice Branch has only published a summary of Mr. Peck's conclusions. Mr. Peck's considered view was that, although s. 293 might well be constitutionally valid, the public interest would be best served by a reference to the BC Court of Appeal. He said that such a reference would result in an "authoitative and expeditious judicial resolution of the legal controversy surrounding polygamy." Mr. Peck preferred a reference to a prosecution for reasons that included potential arguments about pre-charge delay resulting in actual prejudice, officially induced error and fairness considerations. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2-6-21. Mr. Peck also determined that a reference would be preferable to a prosecution because uif the law is upheld, members of the Bountiful community will have fair notice that their practice of polygamy must cease.« 22. This opinion was made public. 23. Section 7(5) of the Crown Counsel Act provides that: Subject to the mandate given to the special prosecutor by the ADAG or to a directive referred to in subsection (4), the decision of a special prosecutor with respect to any matter within his or her mandate is final, but a decision not to approve a prosecution may be appealed by a law enforcement officer under the process established by section 4 (4). [emphasis added] 24. No law enforcement officer appealed Mr. Peck's decision not to prosecute. 25. Nor was any further directive given to Mr. Peck after he received his mandate pursuant to s. 7(4) of the Crown Counsel Act. 26. On September 6, 2007, the Attorney General, the Honourable Wally Oppal, directed, pursuant to s. 5 of the Crown Counsel Act, that Mr. Leonard T. Doust, Q.C. ("Mr. Doust"), another highly respected senior lawyer in Vancouver, be retained "to review Mr. Peck's analysis, including the history and other factors he considered in coming to a conclusion that a prosecution was less preferable than a reference." The Attorney General directed that: If Mr. Doust concludes as a result of this review that a prosecution for offences of polygamy meets the Criminal Justice Branch's charge approval policy, I further direct that you retain Mr. Doust to conduct the prosecution arising from the related police investigation on the offences of polygamy only, and any appeals which may arise from those proceedings. 27. On April 7, 2008, the Criminal Justice Branch published excerpts of the written report of Mr. Doust and released a "Summary of the Reasons of Leonard Doust, Q.C, for Recommending a Reference Rather than a Prosecution.55 28. Mr. Doust concluded, inter alia, that: Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2-7-4. There is a serious isk of unfairness in proceeding with a prosecution under s. 293 at this time, considering: (a) for many years, the Ministry held the view that s. 293 is unconstitutional; (b) the Ministry publicized its view that s. 293 is unconstitutional; (c) on the basis of its view, the Ministry declined to prosecute under s. 293 despite knowing for many years that the section was being offended; (d) today there remains some question as to the constitutionality of s. 293; (e) a prosecution under s. 293 would effectively compel the accused to participate as a test litigant in the complex and lengthy resolution of that question; (f) the accused would have to be selected from among a pool of similarly culpable individuals; and (g) in any case, the reference procedure is available and better suited than a prosecution to the resolution of the constitutionality of s. 293. 29. In the course of discussions with the Attorney General, the Honourable W. Oppal, on May 2, 2008, Mr. Doust declined to prosecute the polygamy allegations. 30. This opinion and decision not to prosecute was also made public. 31. Ater Mr. Peck and Mr. Doust submitted their respective reports to the Criminal Justice Branch, the Honourable W. Oppal is reported to have said that "he could order prosecutors to take on the case, but he would rather work with someone who does not believe it is doomed to failure." He is also reported to have said: "I would like a more aggressive approach, which means you lay the charge and let the defence worry about the constitutionality issue. That's normally the way things are done." 32. Thereater, the Attorney General directed that yet another legal opinion be obtained, this time from Terrence L. Robertson, Q.C. ("Mr. Robertson"), also a highly respected senior lawyer in Vancouver. 33. In his letter of May 28, 2008, the Attorney General set out the terms of his direction as follows:I have received Mr. Richard C. C. Peck's report entitled Final Report of Special Prosecutor for Allegations of Misconduct Involving Individuals Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2-8-Associated with the Community of Bountiful, BC, dated July 25, 2007, which concludes that proceeding by way of a reference is preferable to that of a prosecution for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons include potential arguments relating to pre-charge delay resulting in actual prejudice, officially induced error and fairness considerations. As I disagreed with Mr. Peck's decision not to prosecute allegations of polygamy, I directed that Mr. Leonard T. Doust be appointed as Crown Counsel to review Mr. Peck's analysis with a view to determining the viability of a prosecution. Mr. Doust also concluded that a reference was the preferable means by which to proceed. As he also concluded that a prosecution would be unfair, he declined to prosecute the polygamy allegations duing our discussions on May 2, 2008. I disagree with Mr. Doust's conclusion that a prosecution would be unfair. It is my opinion that the Ciminal Justice Branch is mistaken in its belief that s. 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada is unconstitutional. Both Mr. Doust and Mr. Peck believe s. 293 to be constitutionally valid legislation. A valid criminal law is and should be enforced. To do so is appropriate and is not unfair. Therefore, pursuant to Section 5 of the Crown Counsel Act, this letter is my directive to you to retain the legal services of Mr. Terrance Robertson to conduct a charge assessment of the most recent police investigation into polygamy in the Community of Bountiful. He is to apply the Criminal Justice Branch charge approval policy as it relates to Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada and any other Code provisions. The policy requires first, a determination of whether there is a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the available evidence, and if so, whether it is in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. If he concludes that charges should be approved, he is to conduct the prosecution and any appeals which may aise from those proceedings. As you may designate him to be either Crown Counsel pursuant to Section 4 (1) of the Crown Counsel Act or as Special Prosecutor pursuant to Section 7 of the Crown Counsel Act, I leave that designation selection for your determination. 34. Mr. Robertson decided to prosecute the allegations of polygamy although his reasons for doing so have never been published. On January 7, 2009 the Attorney General, the Honourable W. Oppal, issued a statement that "[i]t is critical to stress that this Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2-9 prosecution is independent of the criminal justice and branch and the Government of British Columbia." 35. Ater his decision to prosecute, Mr. Robertson was reported to have said '"Some people may infer that [Mr. Oppal] was shopping until he found a lawyer that would do his bidding,' Terrence Robertson acknowledged. 'Nothing could be further from the truth. I can tell you, [Mr. Oppal's views] had no impact on my decision. I take my role as special prosecutor very seriously.'" 36. In a letter dated March 11, 2009, from counsel for the Applicant to the Deputy Attorney General, counsel for the Applicant requested that the Crown fund Mr. Blackmore's defence. That letter read, in part, as follows: It is a matter of public record that the Attorney General is of the view that a prosecution rather than a reference to the Court of Appeal is the most appropriate way in which to test the constitutionality of the polygamy law. It is also beyond any doubt that the question of the constitutionality of the polygamy law is one of great public importance. It is also indisputable that by charging only Mr. Blackmore (and Mr. Oler) and not other persons in the Province who are alleged to have practiced polygamy that these prosecutions are to be seen as "test cases." As such Mr. Blackmore is being forced to bear the financial burden of challenging the constitutionality of this law. 37. The Deputy Attorney General replied, in part, as follows: The decision to lay charges against Mr. Blackmore was made by the special prosecutor without involvement of the Attorney General. Mr. Robertson's decision was based on his own application of Ciminal Justice Branch criteria ater a seven-month charge assessment review. Importantly from the point of view of the concerns raised in your letter, Mr. Robertson's decision-making process was entirely independent of the decision not to refer the question of the constitutionality of s. 293 of the Ciminal Code to the courts under the Constitutional Question Act. Given this, we cannot regard Mr. Blackmore any differently from any other defendant raising a constitutional defence to a criminal charge. 38. Mr. Robertson has said that the Applicant's "trial will consist primaily of the determination of the constitutional question," namely the constitutionality of s. 293 of the Criminal Code. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2-10-39. The Crown Counsel Policy Manual on the subject of Special Prosecutors provides that "the Assistant Deputy Attorney General (the "ADAG") is empowered to appoint a special prosecutor in cases where the ADAG believes there is significant potential for real or perceived improper influence in prosecutorial decision-making. Above all other considerations, the ADAG regards the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of criminal justice as the paramount consideration in deciding whether a case requires the appointment of a special prosecutor." 40. In the context of another matter involving s. 7 of the Crown Counsel Act, the Honourable W. Oppal, the Attorney General of British Columbia, advised the Legislative Assembly that "if a special prosecutor is appointed -listen carefully -the Attorney General doesn't get involved. That's pretty fundamental." 41. The Applicant has sought disclosure of the charge approval process and, in particular, all communications that preceded the appointment of the Special Prosecutor, but this request has been refused. 42. The hourly rates that are applied to Special Prosecutors funded by the Ministry of Attorney General range from $200 to $275 per hour and rates paid for "juniors" to assist as co-counsel range, depending on year of call, from $75 per hour for articled students and $200 per hour for a 16 year or greater call. The Applicant estimates that the application will take two days. ARVAY FINLAY Per: Dated: May 8, 2009 Joseph XA^yay, Q.C. Solicitors fer the Applicant This Application is filed by Solicitors for the Applicant, Arvay Finlay, Barristers, whose place of business and address for service is 1350 -355 Burrard Street Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 2G8. Telephone: 604.689.4421 /Fax: 604.687.1941. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2GO "So O00 o O o> oo 6 > *-l <Nc^ t/3 U ^t^-o >, T3 ^O on C3 GO i ? < I-£ >00 PQ O aa > VO o|\o * *00 m PhGO u T+ vo ^ O >> CQ CQ TT-<N o3 lOu-MD < io O a> ¦ * o PQ vo r^ > <u * * 3 Z o a x <L> o o ocd lO a •c Ph ^ m 03 Ph oo > H Q WPQ Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9a1d56a8-68d3-48e3-ac42-edec3eac6da2

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.